The judge advocate states that he offers now the despatch quoted in the second specification of the fourth charge. Question 2.-Will you turn to the despatch dated 1st March, 1849, and read it to the court? Answer. I have it here. It is as follows: "NAVY DEPARTMENT, "March 1, 1849. "SIR: Your despatch (No. 36) of the 2d November, 1848, has been received. The efforts which you have made to prevent desertions, and to apprehend deserters, have been characterized by your usual energy. It will not be advisable to continue your large offers for the return of de serters. "It is very desirable that the accounts of military contributions col lected from the enemy shall be settled without delay; and the balance unexpended in prosecuting the war with Mexico and its necessary incidents should be paid into the treasury of the United States, so that disbursements may be made exclusively of appropriated money. You will be pleased to take the necessary measures to effect this object. "I am, respectfully, &c., "Commodore T. AP C. JONES, "J. Y. MASON. "Commanding U. S. Naval Forces, Pacific Ocean." Question 3.-Will you turn to the despatch dated 20th January, 1849, and read it to the court? Answer. I have it, and it is as follows: "The department is anxious to have a full account of military contri butions collected, and of their disposition. Without deciding that the application can be made to objects specified in your enclosure marked C, every disposition will be felt to sustain you in a course dictated by hu manity and magnanimity. "I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, "Commodore THOS. AP C. JONES, "Commanding Pacific Squadron." "J. Y. MASON. A true copy of the whole of which despatch is annexed to the record, marked "December 26-No. 1." Question 4.-Will you turn now to the original despatch of the ac cused, No. 80, in the book of despatches produced by you, and read it, with its enclosures, to the court? Answer.-1 have it here, and read it as follows: [No. 80.] FLAG SHIP SAVANNAH, Sansalito, Bay of San Francisco, November 6, 1849. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the St. Mary's, Captain Voorhees, sailed hence on the 4th instant for China, preceded four days by the propeller Massachusetts for the Sandwich Islands, gone thither in the hope of procuring a crew. The Preble was still at the Sandwich Islands on the 28th of September. Death had made sad havoc in her crew; but, at the last date, the violence of the disease had abated, and there had been no death for three weeks. I have ordered the Preble to this port as soon as the remainder of her crew can be safely re embarked. I expect her here by the 25th of December. The Southampton, ready to sail for Panama, is detained in port by reason of a southeast gale, now in its third day of duration; the Fredonia, for Monterey, as well as the Southampton, will sail the first favorable opportunity. Until the return of the Southampton, this ship and the Warren must both remain in port, as their crews are too weak for winter cruising. No tidings of the Falmouth yet; she and the Preble will both be actively employed as soon as they join me. Commander Long returns in the Southampton, there being no appropriate duty for him, now that the Warren is only used as a guard-ship. Lieutenant G. F. Emmons, who, as well as Commander Long, came out here in the Ohio, works his passage in the Southampton to Panama, and from there will return home. Lieutenant Fabius Stanly also returns as passenger in the Southampton, under your permission, dated June 18, 1849. This unfortunate officer has again been tried by a court-martial, under charges of going on shore and staying all night two several times, without leave, and in violation of the rules of the squadron and the orders of his immediate commanding officer, Commander Z. F. Johnston, of the St. Mary's, upon whose reports the charges were founded. Most of the specifications were proved, and the court found the accused guilty of "Disobedience of orders," but not guilty of the second charge, "Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman," although the specifications to that charge were found by the court to be proved in part, as the finding and sentence of the court, herewith enclosed, will better express. Conducted as the trial was, the result could not well have been different; but had the witnesses been confined to the subject before the court, and compelled to give direct answers to questions susceptible of such answers, the navy might have been rid of a worse than useless member. I could not approve of the proceedings of the court, as intimated in my two let ters adjourning and dissolving the court, copies of which accompany the finding and sentence of said court. Herewith you will receive a correct list of the commissioned and warrant officers and acting appointments under my command. I have the honor to be, most respectfully, your obedient servant, THOS. AP C. JONES, Commander in chief Pacific Squadron. Hon. Wм. BALLARD PRESTON, Secretary of the Navy. [Extract.] UNITED STATES SLOOP OF WAR ST. MARY'S, Bay of San Francisco, Friday, October 26, 1849, 12 o'clock m. Pursuant to adjournment, the court met on board the United States sloop of war St. Mary's. Present: the president, also the members and the judge advocate. The proceedings of yesterday were read over, and found correct. The president of the court now informed Lieutenant Stanly that the court was ready to hear his defence. Lieutenant Stanly now read paper hereto appended, and marked Defence. The court was closed, and proceeded to review the evidence in the case, and to consider the matter contained in the defence. After a very full and careful deliberation, the court proceeded to declare the following finding: "That specification 1st of charge 1st, as contained in letter No. 1, is proved in part. "That specification 2d of charge 1st, as contained in letters Nos. 2 and 3, is proved in part. "And the court do find that Lieutenant Fabius Stanly of the charge 1st is guilty. "And the court do further find that specification 1st of charge 2d, as contained in letters Nos. 1 and 2, is proved in part. "That specification 2d of charge 2d, as contained in letters Nos. 1 and 2, is proved in part. "And the court do find that Lieutenant Fabius Stanly of the charge 2d is not guilty." The court now adjourned, to meet again to-morrow morning, October 27, 1849, at 10 o'clock a. m. UNITED STATES SLOOP OF WAR WARREN, Bay of San Francisco, Saturday, October 27, 1849-10 o'clock The court met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the president, all the members, and the judge advocate. The proceedings of yesterday were read over and found correct. "That, in finding the accused guilty of disobedience of orders,' and not guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,' the court, before pronouncing the sentence, deem it proper to remark that the only evidence which appears in support of the first charge, is that which relates to Lieutenant Stanly's having transgressed a gen eral order of the squadron, on or about a certain day of last May, while the sloop of war St. Mary's was lying off the town of San Francisco; but it also appears that at the time of committing the transgression, the accused was promptly admonished by his immediate commander, and then tolu by that officer he would pass it over.' "Furthermore, from the embarrassing manner in which the charges are framed, the court even doubts whether the instance in question was in tended to be confined to purposes of narrative, or amplified to the import ance of a specification. "As to the occurrence at Callao, on the occasion set forth in the corre spondence appended to the charges, it does not appear in any of the evi dence adduced, that the accused knew, or had been at any time apprized of, any specific order of his captain requiring an officer on the sick list to obtain the surgeon's sanction or recommendation, 'either in writing or otherwise, to visit the shore.' Nevertheless, it does appear that the ac cused did consult the senior medical officer, as to the relief that would probably be afforded his disease of neuralgia by the operation on the part of a dentist; and that the doctor, in effect, recommended the experiment, although he did not in terms recommend, or in any special manner decide, that the accused was to go on shore the day he did, to have it performed. Hence arose, in the opinion of the court, a mere misapprehension in the mind of Lieutenant Stanly. He understood the doctor's impression of the experiment to carry with it an assent that he should visit the shore at once to have the experiment performed; whereas the doctor, as it appears, really intended nothing of the sort. Regarding this point of the case in the light just indicated, the court therefore feels itself bound by its own sense of justice and propriety to express, in the most unqualified manner, its decided conviction that the accused did not intend to practise the slightest deception whatever towards either Lieutenant Pickering, Commander Johnston, or anybody else, and that his character for veracity stands wholly unimpaired. "In view of the above considerations, and every other feature of the case, the court decides that the accused, Lieutenant Stanly, has already sufficiently atoned for the disobedience of orders of which he is now technically convicted; and the court, therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, award that no further punishment be pronounced against him. "The court also adjudge that the accused, Lieutenant Stanly, is fully aquitted of the second charge, viz: 'conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.' "The court cannot, in justice, dismiss this case without expressing its belief that Commander Johnston, as he apprehended the affair from the reports made to him, was not only justified in making his complaint to the commander of the squadron, but was called upon by his duty to do so. "P. F. VOORHEES, President of Court. E. L. HANDY, Lieutenant. WM. NORRIS, Judge Advocate." "A true copy of the last two days' proceedings of the naval general' court martial, in the case of the United States vs. Lieutenant Fabius Stanly, of the United States navy, including the finding and sentence of said court. "M. PATTERSON JONES, "Secretary to Commander-in chief Pacific Squadron.” "FLAG SHIP SAVANNAH, "Sansalito, October 29, 1849. "SIR: When the court-martial meets to-day, ajourn sine die, but do not dissolve, as it is possible the proceedings in the case of Lieutenant Stanly will have to be returned for amendment as soon as I can more thoroughly examine the same, having already discovered two very material errors, viz: Lieutenant Stanly's name does not appear on the record except as an absentee, until we find it signed to the proceedings, 2d. The decision of the court, whereby the charges and specifications were not allowed to be read to the witnesses. The excursiveness, too, of the testimony, the irrelevant matter given in the evidence, and particularly the testimony of Lieutenant Duer, except so far as relates to the general character of the accused, is altogether inadmissible in courts of law and justice. "Respectfully, "THOS. AP C. JONES, "Commander in chief Pacific Squadron. "Capt. PHILIP F. VOORHEES, "President of the naval general court martial." "FLAG-SHIP SAVANNAH, "Bay of San Francisco October 31, 1819. "SIR: The naval general court martial of which you are president, and which was on the 29th instant, by your order of that date, adjourned sine die, is hereby dissolved. "The several members thereof will return to their respective duties. The proceedings of the court in the case of Lieutenant F. Stanly are not approved, for the reasons intimated in my letter of the 29th instant, adjourning the court; but a press of business, preparatory to the departure of the mail steamer to morrow, and the public interest not admitting of any further delay in sending off the St. Mary's, Southampton, and Massachusetts, oblige me to dissolve the court, without being able to refer back the proceedings, with such comments as, in my judgment, said proceedings call for. "Respectfully, "Capt. P. F. VOORHEES, "THOS. AP C. JONES, "Commander-in chief Pacific Squadron. "President of the court martial." Question 5.-In your former examination you testified that the abstract mentioned in despatch No. 56 was referred to the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury. Will you look at the paper now shown you, marked II, and say whether that is the original abstract received with that despatch, dated April 28, 1849? Answer.-1 have no doubt it is the original abstract received with No. 56, as it shows an endorsement to that effect, in my handwriting. The endorsement reads as follows: "Received at the Navy Depart ment with Commodore Jones's despatch No. 58, of 28th April, 1849.” By an examination of despatch No. 58, it appears that it bears date June 12th, 1849, and relates to a different subject. Despatch No. 56 bears date 28th April, 1849, and refers to an abstract. I have corrected the error by another memorandum, in pencil, as follows: "The number of this despatch is erroneously stated above. The despatch in which this account was received is No. 56, not No. 58. The date above mentioned is corect. "SAML. L. HARRIS, "Clerk Navy Department.-24th Dec. 1850." And thereupon the abstract is read as follows: |